New York Times on the Web Forums
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(742 previous messages)
- 10:09pm Mar 21, 2002 EST (#743
There are very solid reasons why countermeasures for MD are
thousands, tens of thousands, or MORE times cheaper to build than
the MD systems themselves.
It is easy to have fairly large numbers of identical balloons -
which each reflect light or radar just the same - with the warhead
in only one of them. At best, an interception probability of 1/N ,
where N is the number of balloons. That's one easy countermeasure --
and a number of other countermeasures, that have also been discussed
for years, are also easy.
Mazza, do you have a reasonable reason for
questioning the paragraph above?
If you don't - this follows:
That make "missile defense" no reasonable defense
- a huge expense for no real security.
Tests specially tailored for success can keep the engineers
"justified" - - - "justified" for people who aren't looking very
hard - but as far as US security is concerned - the program is
worthless. MD353 rshow55
Proof of the word fake would take longer - what about the
- 10:14pm Mar 21, 2002 EST (#744
No diversion ... no need to Shoot the Sherrif
Talking OPPORTUNITY COST ... how should world dollars be spent?
Destruction versus Construction
Supply is basic to civilization
Infrastructure enables self
Limits unnecessary deaths
Figures big in each
Clean drinking water is basic to life!
- 10:16pm Mar 21, 2002 EST (#745
3/20/02 7:44pm ... MD728 rshow55
- 10:30pm Mar 21, 2002 EST (#746
I'm against cancer. But that doesn't mean I have to be for
"cancer cures" that don't work -- that can't work -- and that only
serve to mislead --- and enrich the people who sell them.
I'd be for missile defense -- if there was a missile
defense that made decent technical sense. But I'm against
"missile defenses" that can't possibly work - - that only serve to
mislead -- and enrich the people who sell them.
- 10:50pm Mar 21, 2002 EST (#747
Just re-read this ... and Showalter's points above have a place
notes that the 'common thought process' in the USA has set aside the
'reasoning and logics' of the 'other' ... Homelanders often don't
have a world view.
- 11:09pm Mar 21, 2002 EST (#748
When Nuclear War was 'born'
Words like 'blackmail'
Had emotional depth
As did 'Illegitimate'
Orphan and Adoption
Yet the world has moved on
People have expressed their
T R U E needs
the economy is
that there are better and best ways
Yet Nuclear Missiles ... Nuclear War
It's hanging there
Just as before !!
- 11:27pm Mar 21, 2002 EST (#749
You still didn't identify your diversion commission source.
- 04:54am Mar 22, 2002 EST (#750
Whitewater - was a money wasting $73m diversion - that went on
for years .. a diverson that took 'attention' from functioning
government and made Americans look like a bunch of hoons in the
... which Republican bully was behind it ?
- 05:00am Mar 22, 2002 EST (#751
Diversion: A spam poster had refs on the board (now cut) relating
to a theory that 9/11 was a False Flag ... done by other than the
labelled ones .. mazza9
The interesting thing re American domestic and foreign
'bad-happenings' is that there is NO obvious Truth apparent ... a
mix of myths take over .. speculation becomes tabloid fodder ...
decades down the track - the truth is never clear and obvious ...
not even when the layers of lies are peeled back.
New York Times on the Web Forums